So now we also have @shipwreckedcrew which differs from @McAdooGordon and @reeveslawstl. Everyone who follows me knows I greatly respect all three. In this case, I find myself agreeing with @shipwreckedcrew. This is why. https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1311419500646993920

As an Agent I have a much different role in court than the prosecutor or defense attorney. And while I often sit at the table with the prosecutor on my cases and others I’ve been asked to consult, I’m not an attorney and I don’t get to talk (except when testifying)

I get to listen to every argument made by every attorney. Often times I have to bite my tongue when I think an AUSA gave a poor argument. There’s nothing I can do while they’re at the podium.

So what I’m saying is that I get to evaluate every argument from both sides and watch the Judge’s demeanor. I see a lot of legal arguments and I’m not so bad at predicting the outcome.

Having said that, I’ve never appeared in DC nor do I have a fraction of the court time any decent trial attorney has.

I agree with @shipwreckedcrew there is no reason that Sullivan should think the COA would agree with him on the merits if he denies the dismissal.

In fact, I think that’s understating it. The COA did everything but directly say they’d rule against him. They obviously had a low opinion of Gleeson’s arguments. All three @shipwreckedcrew @McAdooGordon and @reeveslawstl seem to believe the govt will mandamus if Sullivan denies

And that the COA will grant one. They all believe that because the COA, again, was all but telling Sullivan to dismiss this dog. And now? Now the government has outright said the FBI engaged in misconduct and Flynn is innocent. The govt also hung Covington out to dry.

During yesterday’s hearing the govt admitted there were emails that suggested a deal for non prosecution of Flynn’s son that they said was something the court would have to look into.

That, btw, also implicates the SCO. So if the COA doesn’t grant the mandamus the district court would be in the position of sentencing a man that BOTH parties are saying is innocent. The govt is, itself, saying the defendant was setup.

I confess that the more curious part of me would like to see a sentencing where both parties argue against sentencing at all. How does that go? Does he bring in Gleason for that too? That would be insane.

Anyways, I’ve been saying that Sullivan needs to take an off ramp. As the argument went along I felt the tide had shifted towards dismissing without prejudice. I think Sullivan still thinks there is a potential FARA case out there too.

That’s my opinion for what it’s worth.